You are here

Obama presses on with GOP charm offensive

Punctuated with the sounds of ringing phones and clinking china, President Barack Obama's new legislative diplomacy has Republicans wondering what took so long.

Obama pressed ahead Thursday with his bipartisan political outreach, eliciting a cautious welcome in a capital that has been riven by gridlock and partisanship over how to lower deficits and stabilize the nation's debt.

Obama had the Republican House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, and the committee's top Democrat, Chris Van Hollen, to lunch at the White House, a day after he dined with a dozen Republican senators in what the White House said was an effort to find common ground with rank-and-file lawmakers.

Few were willing to guarantee that the engagement would yield results. Previous presidents have tried to develop relationships with members of Congress with varying degrees of success, though some of the biggest pieces of legislation, such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and a Social Security deal in 1983 required cross-party efforts by Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan.

"We're not naive about the challenges that we still face; they exist," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "And there are differences."

Obama has negotiated directly in the past with House Speaker John Boehner in hopes of finding a large deficit reduction deal, but those efforts have faltered as the president pursued deals with tax increases that Republicans oppose. Most recently, neither side worked hard to avoid $85 billion in automatic spending cuts and instead devolved into partisan finger-pointing over which side was more to blame.

Boehner said Obama's new approach represented a 180-degree turn. "He is going to, after being in office now over four years, he is actually going to sit down and talk to members," Boehner said. "I think it is a sign, a hopeful sign, and I'm hopeful that something will come out of it. But if the president continues to insist on tax hikes, I don't think we're going to get very far."

Carney argued that Obama's new talks with congressional Republicans did not signal a shift as much as an attempt to seize an opportunity after automatic spending cuts kicked in last Saturday but months before another fiscal deadline looms. But in briefing reporters Thursday, Carney noticeably dialed back his criticism of Republicans and emphasized the "common ground" that existed between the parties.

"The fact is, this should have been happening all along," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., one of the dozen Republicans who joined Obama for dinner Wednesday night at a hotel a few blocks from the White House.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a veteran of Washington politics who got an ice-breaking call from Obama this week, said he appreciated his talk with Obama but said that type of engagement should have occurred much sooner.

"He's the first president in my experience, and I've known or worked with eight, who's had almost no personal relationships here in the Senate, on either side as far as I can tell," Alexander said.ms

Obama may be attempting his charm blitz later than most presidents do. Some presidents have found common ground with opponents sooner, others have not. Former Republican Senate leader Trent Lott, speaking at the 2009 ceremony unveiling his majority leader's portrait in the Senate, said he and President Bill Clinton maintained a friendly relationship even though they quarreled bitterly in public.

"Even if I did or said something stupid — or vice versa, excuse me, Mr. President — the main thing about it is that quite often we'd call one or the other and we'd laugh about it," Lott said as Clinton smiled and nodded at his side.

Senate Historian Donald Ritchie said that Reagan, during his first year in office, called every member of Congress. "His congressional liaison found that that worked against him in the long run because members of Congress expected the president to call them on every issue," Ritchie said.

Indeed, Ritchie said, no matter what the relationship is between a president and Congress, lawmakers inevitably complain that presidential outreach is not enough and presidents regularly argue that members of Congress demand too much.

Obama's outreach comes as Senate Democrats appeared to move toward easing passage for a spending measure to pay for day-to-day federal operations through September. Appropriations Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., said there's a "delicate balance" between supporting Obama administration priorities and going too far as to "sink the bill."

Mikulski said the Senate would give agencies including the Agriculture, Homeland Security and Justice departments their detailed, line-by-line budgets as part of legislation advancing next week to head off a government shutdown at the end of March. Other agencies would run on autopilot essentially at last year's funding levels. The automatic cuts — 5 percent to domestic agencies and 7.8 percent to the Pentagon — would apply whether or not an agency received its detailed budget.

The House passed its version of the legislation Wednesday.

Obama plans to address Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate separately next week, the next step in his approach to spell out his agenda to lawmakers.

White House aides say the effort to reach out to rank-and-file members is designed to let the president explain his policies without the filter of party leaders, with whom he has dealt with in the past.

Along with Corker, the lawmakers in attendance at Wednesday's dinner were Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Dan Coats of Indiana, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Mike Johanns of Nebraska.

Comments

Contango

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 9:13am

Behind closed doors Pres. BHO is "charming," but he'll continue to bash and demagogue the Repubs in public?

How is that not neurotic and dysfunctional?

Where and what are the specific "cuts" Pres. Obama? Where's the budget?

The Big Dog's back

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 10:29am

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Personal attacks (including: name calling, presumption of guilt or guilt by association, insensitivity, or picking fights).

Contango

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 11:08am

Right outa the box comes Big Dog’s Law : BD will eventually write something off the subject and half-witted.

deertracker

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 11:33am

"BD will eventually write something off the subject and half-witted." You know LOTS about that too!

Contango

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 2:23pm

@ deertracker:

Thanks for another example of BD's Law since your post is ALSO off-topic and half-witted. :)

deertracker

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 3:05pm

Truth hurts eh? Dry it up and move on!

Contango

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 3:32pm

@ deertracker:

Still with the off-topic, nit-witted posts eh?

The Big Dog's back

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 4:14pm

Words spoken from a true off topic poster.

coasterfan

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 1:47pm

That's odd, I thought BD's comment was right on topic.

Fromthe419

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 10:43am

I applaud BHO for reaching across the aisle, however I think this is more artifice and political theater. No one is willing to tackle the real issues that are plaguing our nation. Until entitlements are addressed nothing will be accomplished. They have created generational warfare, spend today and pass it on to the next generation. It's kind of the reverse of what we are seeing at the local level. If we don't spend (levies) we are screwing our youth, and on the national level if we don't give entitlements to the senior citizens and dump the bill on our youth the seniors are screwed. Unfortunately, our leadership stole the SSI money to fund wars, build bridges or whatever. Unfortunately, I think we are past the tipping point....the world will not allow the United States reach 20T in national debt.

coasterfan

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 2:07pm

I don't think we can call Medicare an entitlement, since senior citizens PAID INTO that system via paycheck deduction for decades. The way it is supposed to work is that the young and middle class pay into the system, and then reap the benefits when they reach retirement age. Those problem, of course, is that all the baby boomers are reaching retirement age in increasing numbers, so there isn't enough funding to support the system as it currently is. I think we all agree on that.

Democrats believe that we should find a way to keep the system as is, and provide the benefits that the baby boomers were promised, and do so by increasing revenue into the system. Although most of us aren't rich, we understand that taxes are currently at an all time low during the past 40 years, so we working folks should all contribute a bit more, via taxes. Republicans focus on two things alone: lower r
Taxes and the federal deficit (and have cared only about the latter since 2009), and seemingly find nothing else to be of importance. They worry about the future, but only as it relates to the budget. They care not about funding education today (which has obvious implications for the future), maintaining our infrastructure, government oversight/regulations for such things as clean air, water, safe food supply (which obviously affect us all today and in the future).

I hear conservatives complain about Obama being a tax & spend Democrat. Those of us who pay attention to what actually is happening know that spending increased and ave. of 8% pe r year under Bush compared to less than 2% per year under Obama. We also realize that to increase spending, while decreasing income (as Bush did) is equal parts irresponsible and stupid. If you don't like "tax and spend", you certainly shouldn't support "cut taxes and spend more" as was the Bush mantra.

Contango

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 4:26pm

coasterfan writes:

"Democrats believe that we should find a way to keep the system as is, and provide the benefits that the baby boomers were promised, and do so by increasing revenue into the system."

Enjoy reading your "magical" thinking.

Pay more in taxes? Why did Pres. BHO just recently "lock-in" 99% of the Bush era tax cuts? hum?

If spending has decreased under Pres. BHO, why is the federal debt on track to increase to $17T in '13?

Again, you're adding in the repaid TARP funds with interest and counting them as revenue.

Medicaid and Medicare? The distinction is "earned" and "unearned" entitlements.

anthras

Wed, 03/13/2013 - 2:01pm

Coasterfan, You stated that the young and middle class pay into the system and then reap the benefits when they reach retirement age but the problem is that all the baby boomers are reaching the retirement age at increasing numbers.If the baby boomers are reaching the retirement age at increasing numbers then via your theory would they not have at one time been young and middle class and paid into the system at increasing numbers ?????????

Actually I did do much better with what I saved and invested myself and when I die my social security will be done what I have invested and grew on my own will be passed on to my children.

So your argument is: If only the Repubs were more socialist like the Dems that you'd be voting for 'em?

So you don't believe that the Dems have more than their share of extremist "loons"?

Again: What are the specifics of Pres. BHO's entitlement "cuts"? Got any facts and figures?

deertracker

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 3:03pm

Will you give it a rest with all the socialist crap? I don't believe even you really believe what you write sometimes. You sound like a bitter grumpy old man. People like you won't be happy until the less fortunate among us are starving and dying with less dignity than a dog. Is that really who you are? The CONS had their chance to fix things for eight long years but things got worse. When are you and your CON buddies going to admit that? You talk about facts and figures but you cherry pick what you want to believe. Your constant gloom and doom posts are really OLD!

Contango

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 3:36pm

@ deertracker:

Try to wrap that simplemindedness around the topic for once woulda?

Where and what are the facts and figures behind the entitlement "cuts" to which Pres. BHO has alluded?

The Big Dog's back

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 4:13pm

I so agree deertracker.

shucks

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 8:27pm

Well said, deertracker.
I wonder if he had a stroke at one time.

anthras

Wed, 03/13/2013 - 2:04pm

I do think that if you take a real good look at the socialists countries there would most likely be more less fortunate starving and dying than in this country.Of course the persons in the socialists governments seem to do well

coasterfan

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 2:18pm

Yeah, the current cast of Republican leaders are a freak show. The interesting thing is, they refuse to adapt. Instead of learning from their 2012 loss, they dug their heels in, and continue to alienate the voters they most need to attract. Anyone who dares to speak with a more centrist, open view (one that might actually attract some new voters to their cause) is immediately branded an outcast. How else to explain their ostracism of Christie this past month, while still embracing the same old 2008-2011 cast that a majority of Americans rejected?

It's ok by me. The more stubborn they remain, the easier it will be for Democrats to continue their recent winning ways 5 of past 6 elections / popular vote. Doesn't the GOP of 2013 remind you of the Democrat party of the 1980's? Adrift with no direction... And you can sense the palpable anger among the conservatives who post here, which is rather amusing at times.

Contango

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 3:56pm

coasterfan writes:

"Doesn't the GOP of 2013 remind you of the Democrat party of the 1980's? Adrift with no direction..."

You answered your own question and didn't realize it. History is a pendulum, it always swings back.

Enough of the fair share crap. Obama (and hia cronies) take more than their fair share. I mean his expenditure exceed anyone's fair share But then again what is "fair share" anyway?

Woody Hayes

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 5:37pm

Contango,
Did you vote for Romney in 2012? How did that work out?

Contango

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 10:06am

Nope.

herbie_hancock

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 6:28pm

Did you vote for Obama in 2008 and 2012? Hows that working out?

The Big Dog's back

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 6:41pm

Great! Lowest unemployment in 4 years! The economy is moving forward, not Repub, I mean reverse.

mikel

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 8:49am

Thanks to pres. Bush! If all of the ills of the last 8 years are Bush's fault according to you then let's give him credit as well.

The Big Dog's back

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 9:28am

Whatever floats your boat mikel.

swiss cheese kat

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 5:50pm

The Big Dog's back wrote: Lowest unemployment in 4 years! The economy is moving forward

@The Big Dog's back,
Now if that aint a dim-witted liberal kool-aid drinking comment. Golly! The big pup must be frothing at the mouth.

Obama Wins Reelection With Highest Unemployment Rate Of Any President Since FDR

anthras

Wed, 03/13/2013 - 2:09pm

about 7 out of 10 jobs created are government jobs. Unemployment is lowered by more persond dropping out of the job market and records of numbers going on social security disability

coasterfan

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 2:22pm

I agree with BD. In 2008, I was unemployed and my home was foreclosed upon (I was one of the millions of victims of the housing crisis ushered in by Mr. Bush's policies). My recovery mirrored the country's: new job in 2009, and each year has been a little better than the one before it. The massive economy free-fall is in our rear view mirror, as well as my own. I shudder to think where I would be if McCain had won.

Contango

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 3:43pm

@ coasterfan:

McCain win - not much difference; Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Enjoy your victim hood as a spoiled American.

Do you know that if you make $48K annually, that you are one of the one percenters in the WORLD?

You’re among the world’s wealthy!

This tepid "recovery" has a direct correlation to Fed policies begun in '08. Pres. BHO's stimulus programs did pretty much squat.

swiss cheese kat

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 5:57pm

@ coasterfan
The Housing Price Bubble began to form in 1997 and the Clinton Administration housing secretary Andrew Cuomo helped spawn the mortgage crisis years later.
Bush was far from perfect but put blame where blame is due and get your facts straight.

Big Dog....your facts are wrong yet again. lol. you still working on that education.

The Big Dog's back

Fri, 03/08/2013 - 7:22pm

What facts are wrong? Unemployment at 7.7%.

arnmcrmn

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 7:08am

You fail to ignore the % of people who aren't counted in the unemployment count because their unemployment benefits have ran out and they have simply stopped looking for a job. Why do you think welfare is up 44% over the last 4 years? When one runs out of unemployment, they get dropped off that chart and get added to the welfare chart. Derp, surprised you couldn't figure that one out on your own. This nation has not yet moved in the right direction. Its been totally stagnant for the last 2 years.

You liberals are absolutely amazing. Its going to take 2-3 full % points in the right direction for avg. American to believe anyone has anything back on track. You are nowhere to be found blaming Bush when unemployment ticks up .1-.3, but when it goes down .1%, you are on here gloating about it. We all know how the system is rigged. We all know that if Obie released a report today showing the actual unemployment it would shock a lot of people....maybe even you, but Obie loves when people fall off the unemployment chart for 2 reasons. 1. Makes his recovery look better to the blind liberals. 2. He has yet another vote because now they are hooked on government handouts to survive. Huge fail again kiddo.

coasterfan

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 2:26pm

Dog, the only facts that matter to them are those which back up their narrow world view. If it proves them wrong, they don't believe it. As Jon Stewart says, they live in the Rpublican bubble, in which facts don't get in...

Contango

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 4:02pm

@ coasterfan:

Here's a "fact" for ya: Why is the U.S. labor force participation rate at 30 yr. lows?

Disability, SS and welfare payments are helping to make up for the lack of jobs.

Figures that you get your economic info from a comedian.

coasterfan

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 9:28am

If you look at unemployment as a bar graph, it's impossible to state that it hasn't gotten markedly better since Obama took office. It jumped from 5% to 10% from late 2007 through early 2009. Since that time, it has gone steadily lower to the current 7.7%. Now that more than 200,000 jobs have been added each month since November, economists are now revising their 2013 projections to an even more rosy picture.

I kept thinking that, as statistics kept piling up, Republicans would be forced to admit that things are getting better. But they haven't done that. It takes some mental gymnastics to ignore 4 years of obvious statistics...

Contango

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 10:05am

@ coasterfan:

Correlation, not causation.

The Fed is doin' the heavy lifting with monetary policy. Fiscal policy is a mess.

Rebounds are expected after an economic downturn - it's called the business cycle. This one is very fragile.

Labor force participation rates are at 30 yr. lows - not good.

SS, disability and welfare payments are filling in the gap of lost jobs.

It’s like putting icing on a rotten cake.

coasterfan

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 2:28pm

Meh. If unemployment goes up, you blame Obama. If it goes down, you don't believe it's real. So, in other words, you only accept those facts that bolster your point of view. Rolls eyes...

The Big Dog's back

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 3:32pm

winnie lives on bullspit mountain.

swiss cheese kat

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 6:06pm

The Big pup fussed at the nipple, took a few angry suckles and broke into hysterical wails when the truth is pointed out to him.

Contango

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 4:10pm

@ coasterfan:

The unemployment rate only counts those who are collecting unemployment benefits.

The Great Recession of 2008-09 destroyed $18 trillion in net worth. Indices tracking the stock market and home prices both showed a drop of about half. A drop of even 20% in house prices can wipe out the net worth of many households. A drop of half is catastrophic. It wasn't just that incomes fell with rising unemployment: the wealth effect pulled down spending by staggering amounts. (And of course this creates a vicious cycle as dropping incomes erodes wealth which drags down incomes which .... )

Fast forward to the present .... Job numbers are up. In February, the economy created 236,000 jobs - that's now nearly 2 million in the last 12 months. Unemployment dropped to 7.7%, down from 8.3% a year ago and down from 7.9% the month before. http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/08/...

Home prices are up nearly 10% (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/03...) in the last year. This means an increase in net worth of about $17,000 for the typical home owner. Zillow estimates that about 2 million homeowners were freed from negative equity in 2012 and forecasts that another million will climb above zero in 2013.

Economists were incredibly aligned (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2...) on their 2013 forecast, which is ridiculous given the amount of uncertainty in the economy. In a typical year, the gap between economic forecasts is about 2% (predictions ranging from, say, 0% to 2% for growth). For 2013, the gap was only .4%, predictions ranging from 2.1% to 2.5%.

US GDP is $15 trillion. The US lost about $18 trillion in the Great Recession of 2008-09. A recovery of all the stock value and about a third of the home value ends up improving wealth by nearly one year of GDP. That's huge. And could easily account for extra spending of about $150 billion - an additional one percent of GDP growth that I'm now forecasting in comparison to real economists. Whether for good or bad, a wealth swing equal to one year's GDP can't help but have a huge effect on GDP growth.

coasterfan

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 9:04am

The recession started in 2007. It is more accurately called the Bush Recession of 2007-08. It would be a surprise if historians remembered it any other way.

Contango

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 10:12am

@ coasterfan:

So do you think that housing prices should have continued into the stratosphere without a market correction?

What is pumping up the Dow, which on an inflation adjusted basis in still off it's yr. 2000 highs by about 10%?

The Big Dog's back

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 10:40am

Get a job.

coasterfan

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 2:31pm

Contango: Housing crash wouldn't have occurred without the egregious mistakes/greed of your party. So, why not direct the question to them?

This article is about Obama offering the olive branch, and - yet again - reaching across the aisle to compromise. how unfortunate that the GOP cannot do the same. Buncha losers...

The Big Dog's back

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 3:35pm

Obama offers the Olive branch and the Repubs take a chainsaw to it.

Contango

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 4:19pm

coasterfan writes:

"Housing crash wouldn't have occurred without the egregious mistakes/greed of your party."

Still ain't a Repub. Nothing goes up in price forever.

The Dems wanted affordable housing and Fannie and Freddie helped give it to 'em with lotsa $ for sub-prime loans.

Why are Fannie and Freddie still in receivership?

One of the next financial bubbles is student loans. Billions of dollars and no credit checks. It's the new sub-prime fiasco compliments of the govt.

This future cow patty is Pres. BHO's and the Dems.

OMG.LOL.WT_

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 5:12pm

"Still ain't a Repub. Nothing goes up in price forever." Not even gasoline?

If obama said put your lips on my nipple and suckle on it, all the liberal democrats would have to fight off The Big Pooch's back to get their turn.

jas

Sat, 03/09/2013 - 6:25pm

Believe it or not, if both sides are willing to risk ignoring the extremists in their parties, there is a middle ground where agreement can be reached. Unfortunately, the more moderate Democrats and Republicans are too afraid of the extremists to act.

OSUBuckeye59

Sun, 03/10/2013 - 3:27am

In all fairness, the Housing crisis roots started before GW Bush served his first term. There is plenty of blame to go around, starting with . . .

The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.

There were also the home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.

And let's not forget the Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working and middle-class families.

Toss in the mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, and adjustable rate loans with low initial payments but exploding interest rates.

How about former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages?

But it doesn't stop there as many Wall Street firms paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities, and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.

Then along came the Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.

Finally, we had massive collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up took a great deal of cooperation.

bucknut36

Sun, 03/10/2013 - 7:40am

@OSU Great Post! Refreshing to hear from someone with some knowledge. There is plenty of blame to go around on BOTH sides!

'Because of sequester, they cut my tails,' Obama said at the head table of the Gridiron Club’s spring dinner March 9, opening with an allusion to the budget sequestration he has ordered. 'My joke writers have been placed on furlough.'"

Good that Pres. BHO can afford to be funny while citizens are suffering eh?